Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to not consult on the final amended plans for the development of a property next to Mr X’s house. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to warrant our investigating. Even if the decision was fault, there is not enough evidence of the matter causing a significant personal injustice to Mr X to justify an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next to a property which was the subject of planning applications. He complains the Council decided not to do any public consultation on the third set of permitted plans for the development.
2. Mr X says the Council’s decision denied him the right to comment on the development plans. He is concerned that ‘inconsistencies and omissions made in the decision notice’ will have ‘consequences for the future’. Mr X says a rooflight window serving an en-suite bathroom in the development overlooks his entire amenity space. He wants the Council to retrospectively apply a condition, requiring that window to be obscure glazed and fixed shut.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome;
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• viewed relevant online planning documents and maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply, and considered his response.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council says the final permitted set of plans reduced the scale of the development and did not add elements which would have additional impact to neighbouring properties. I have not seen evidence that those plans made changes to the development which could have caused planning harm to Mr X’s property. The aspects of the new development closest to Mr X’s property, the window serving an en-suite bathroom and the garage, had been in earlier plans, so Mr X had the opportunity to comment on them during earlier consultations.
7. I recognise Mr X is frustrated the Council decided not to consult on the final plans. But we could only justify our further involvement if that decision resulted in a significant personal injustice to him. There is not enough evidence of such an impact on Mr X stemming from the Council’s decision not to consult. The loss of an opportunity to comment would only be a significant injustice if Mr X was unable to object to new elements of the development which increased the adverse impact on his home.
8. Mr X says the rooflight window serving the en-suite bathroom will overlook the entirety of his amenity space. Overlooking in planning terms is only considered to arise from or between habitable rooms. In the planning system, a bathroom is not defined as a habitable room, as they are not used for extended periods of time in the way habitable rooms such as living rooms and bedrooms would be. So even if the Council had consulted and Mr X had objected to the en-suite bathroom’s rooflight because of overlooking, there would have been no further planning conditions for the Council to apply to that window.
9. Mr X has referred to a nearby property where the Council has placed conditions on another development’s permission, requiring some windows to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to protect neighbour amenity. The planning officers’ decision to apply conditions on one particular permission does not mean they are required to do so on another. Officers are required to consider each planning application on its specific own merits and facts.
10. In deciding not to investigate, I also take into account that the outcome Mr X is seeking is not one we can achieve. We cannot order a council to retrospectively impose a new planning condition on a granted permission. So this a further reason why we should not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision not to re‑consult on the final plans to warrant an investigation;
• there is not enough evidence of a significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the Council’s decision not to re-consult on the final plans to justify our investigating;
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman